Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV45292, Date: 2023-02-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV45292 Hearing Date: February 16, 2023 Dept: 28
Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and
Amazon.com Services, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss for Inconvenient Forum
Having
considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On
November 25, 2020, Plaintiff Lioon Kharnoulian (“Plaintiff”) filed this action
against Defendant Kastar (USA) Inc., (“Kastar”) for strict products liability
and negligent products liability. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to
include Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon Inc.”), Amazon.com Services, LLC
(“Amazon LLC”), LG Chem, LTD (“LGC LTD”) and LG Chem America (“LGCA”).
On
January 5, 2021, Kastar filed an answer. On October 18, 2022, Amazon LLC and
Amazon Inc. filed an answer.
On
January 5, 2023, Amazon LLC and Amazon Inc. (“Moving Defendants”) filed a
Motion for Forum Non Conveniens to be heard on February 16, 2023. On February
2, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On February 8, 2023, Moving Defendants
filed a reply.
Trial
is scheduled for May 26, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Moving
Defendants request the Court dismiss the case on the basis of forum non
conveniens, instead submitting Michigan as the more convenient forum.
Plaintiff
request the Court deny the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
CCP
§ 410.30(a) states: “When a court upon motion of a party or its own motion
finds that in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in
a forum outside this state, the court shall stay or dismiss the action in whole
or in part on any conditions that may be just.”
“In
considering whether to stay an action, in contrast to dismissing it, the
plaintiff's residence is but one of many factors which the court may consider.
The court can also take into account the amenability of the defendants to
personal jurisdiction, the convenience of witnesses, the expense of trial, the
choice of law, and indeed any consideration which legitimately bears upon the
relative suitability or convenience of the alternative forums.” (Archibald v. Cinerama Hotels (1976) 15 Cal.3d 853, 860.) The
inquiry is not based in whether the newly proposed forum is a better forum for
the case, but rather whether California is a “seriously inconvenient forum.” (Ford
Motor Co. v. Insurance Co. of No. America (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 604, 611.)
In determining whether to grant a
motion based on an inconvenient forum, the Court must determine: 1) if the
alternate forum is “suitable” for trial and 2) if the balance of private and
public interest factors makes it “just”. (Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991)
54 Cal.3d 744, 746.) A forum is suitable “if there is jurisdiction and no
statute of limitations bar to hearing the case on the merits.” (American
Cemwood Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 431,
436.) If the case would be barred by the statute of limitations, the Court may
still find the venue suitable if the defendants stipulate to not raise the
statute of limitations as a defense. (Stangvik, supra at
752.)
Public interest factors to be
considered “"include [1] avoidance of overburdening local courts with
congested calendars, [2] protecting the interests of potential jurors so that
they are not called upon to decide cases in which the local community has
little concern, and [3] weighing the competing interests of California and the
alternate jurisdiction in the litigation." (Stangvik, 54 Cal. 3d at
751.)
DISCUSSION
Suitability for Trial
Moving Defendants state that all appearing
Defendants have agreed to submit to jurisdiction in Michigan. So long as all
Defendants agree to jurisdiction and to not be barred by the statute of
limitations, the alternate forum is suitable for trial.
Plaintiff argues that LGC LTD is still in the
process of being served through the Hague Convention—dismissal would be
inappropriate as it would bar Plaintiff’s claims against LGC LTD in Michigan,
as it would be past the statute of limitations. Plaintiff also argues that
Moving Defendants did not show LGC LTD would be subject to personal
jurisdiction in Michigan. Finally, Plaintiffs state that the purported
stipulations by Defendants do not comply with CCP § 360.5.
Moving Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s
failure to timely serve LGC LTD is not Moving Defendants’ fault, and thus
should not count against dismissal.
Private and Public Factors
Moving Defendants argue that both public and
private factors weigh in favor of Michigan. Plaintiff lives in Michigan; the
accident occurred in Michigan, in front of his family, all of whom still live
in Michigan. The subject batteries were shipped to his Michigan home; they were
also allegedly disposed of in Michigan, by a Michigan resident. All evidence
and witnesses live in Michigan, including his treating physicians and supervisors,
making it substantially more difficult to depose these parties. Sources of
proof, cost of deposing witnesses, and availability of compulsory attendance
all weigh in favor of Michigan.
Plaintiff argues that he is willing to attend
any IME in California and will conduct any and all depositions by remote video
conference. Michigan is part of the Uniform Interstate Depositions and
Discovery Act, making obtaining testimony and evidence straightforward.
California has little interest in the suit.
The only California connection is that Kastar is domiciled in California. There
is no indication of any California based witnesses or evidence, beyond
representatives of Kastar. This does not involve a California Plaintiff and is
of little interest to the already overburdened local courts.
Moving Defendants’ primary place of business
is Washington, and its state of incorporation is Delaware, meaning that neither
California nor Michigan is the most convenient for Moving Defendants. However,
as pointed out in Plaintiff’s opposition, the subject batteries were delivered
to a California Amazon fulfillment center, before finally being shipped to
Michigan. Moving Defendants have 29 fulfillment centers and 60 corporate
offices in California.
Plaintiff also argues that this motion is
substantially delayed—Moving Defendants were served in August 2021, which
disclosed Plaintiff’s residence, location of the injury, and treatment. Moving
Defendants filed an answer in October of 2022, then waited an additional 3
months to file this motion. Considerable discovery has already taken place.
Moving Defendants argue that they have
not conducted substantial discovery—all referenced discovery is between Kastar
and Plaintiff.
Based on the above, the Court finds that
California is an inconvenient forum, and Michigan is a proper, more convenient
forum, for the currently appearing parties. However, due to the fact LGC LTD’s
service has been delayed by the Hague Convention, the Court will stay the
action. Plaintiff thus can preserve his action against LGC LTD, should LGC LTD not
agree to jurisdiction in Michigan, while other parties can resolve this in a
substantially more convenient forum.
CONCLUSION
Defendants
Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss for
Inconvenient Forum is GRANTED. The Court grants a stay on this action pending
the filing of this case in the correct Michigan Court and all parties
filing a stipulation to proceed despite the statute of limitations issues.
Moving
party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this
ruling with the Court within five days.
The parties are directed to the header of this
tentative ruling for further instructions.